Advertisement

Simulation and Visualisation of Agent Survival and Settlement Behaviours in the Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Mesolithic Landscapes

  • Eugene Ch′ngEmail author
  • Vincent L. Gaffney
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)

Abstract

Agent-based modelling and simulation of survival and settlement behaviour via interactive visualisation could potentially become a useful technique for generating new knowledge in those areas that sparse information, acquired through traditional methods, does not allow researchers to make informed decisions about past behaviour. This is particularly important following the development of remote sensing technologies that, in marine environments, are permitting novel exploration of previously inaccessible historic landscapes. This article explores and develops an agent-based model for basic survival and settlement behaviour for Mesolithic communities based within a marine palaeolandscape. It discusses the issues regarding how agents can be created to react to resource and environmental needs and limitations. The methodological study examines individual agent behaviour and sets the foundation for future, more complex scenarios that span large spatio-temporal landscapes including the North Sea and European coastal shelves. The article also considers the key technical challenges that must be met if large complex scenarios emerge in which the modelling of interaction between vegetation, animals and human groups becomes a priority.

Keywords

Agent-based modelling Simulation Hunter-Gatherer Mesolithic Landscape archaeology 

References

  1. Ackley, D., & Littman, M. (1991). Interactions between learning and evolution. In C. Langton et al. (Eds.), Artificial life II: Santa Fe Institute studies in the sciences of complexity (pp. 487–509). Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. W. (1972). More is Different. Science, 177(4047), 393–396.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, G. (2004). The wider significance of submerged archaeological sites and their relevance to world prehistory. In N. C. Flemming (Ed.), Submarine prehistoric archaeology of the North Sea. CBA Research Report 141.Google Scholar
  4. Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J. L., et al. (2001). Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ch′ng, E. (2009a). An efficient segmentation algorithm for entity interaction. Biodiversity Informatics, 6(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  6. Ch′ng, E. (2009b). An artificial life-based vegetation modelling approach for biodiversity research. In Chiong, R. (Ed.), Nature-inspeired informatics for intelligent applications and knowledge discovery: Implications in business, science and engineering (pp. 66–118). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  7. Ch′ng, E. (2009c). Experiential archaeology: Is virtual time travel possible?”. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 20(2009), 458–470.Google Scholar
  8. Ch′ng, E. (2009d). A behavioural agent model for synthesizing vegetation distribution patterns on 3D terrains. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 23(1), 78–102.Google Scholar
  9. Ch′ng, E. (2007a). Using games engines for archaeological visualisation: Recreating lost worlds. CGames ‘07, The 11th International Conference on Computer Games: AI, Animation, Mobile, Educational & Serious Games, La Rochelle. 21–23 November 2007.Google Scholar
  10. Ch′ng, E. (2007b). Modelling the adaptability of biological systems. The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, 1(2007), 13–20.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Ch′ng, E. (2011). Spatially realistic positioning of plants for virtual environments: Simple biotic and abiotic interaction for populating terrains. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 31(4), 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coles, B. J. (1998). Doggerland: A speculative survey. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 64, 45–81.Google Scholar
  13. Craenen, B., & Theodoropoulos, G. (2010a) Interfacing multi-agent models to distributed simulation platforms: The case of PDES-MAS. Winter Simulation Conference (WSC 2010), December 2010.Google Scholar
  14. Craenen, B., Theodoropoulos, G., Suryanarayanan, V., Murgatroyd, P., Gaffney, V. L., & Haldon, J. (2010b). Medieval military logistics: A case for distributed agent-based simulation. Proceedings of the 3rd International ICST Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques, Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering (ICST), Brussels, Belgium. ISBN: 978-963-9799-87-5.Google Scholar
  15. Cuttler, R., Gaffney, V., & Al Naimi, F. (Forthcoming). Between the salt water and the sea strand; Palaeolandscape exploration in the United Kingdom and Qatar. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the Qatar Museums Authority, Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  16. De Wolf, T., & Holvoet, T. (2005). Emergence versus self-organisation: Different concepts but promising when combined. LNCS, 3464(2005), 1–15.Google Scholar
  17. Fitch, S., Gaffney, V., Gearey, B., & Ramsey, E. (2011). Between the lines: Enhancing methodologies for the exploration of extensive, inundated palaeolandscapes. In D. C. Cowley (Ed.), Remote sensing for archaeological heritage management. EAC Occasional Paper 5.Google Scholar
  18. Flemming, N. C. (Ed.) (2004). Submarine prehistoric archaeology of the North Sea: Research priorities and collaboration with industry. CBA Research Report 141.Google Scholar
  19. Gaffney, V., & Murgatroyd, P. (Forthcoming). “Only individuals”: Moving the Byzantine Army to Manzikert. In S. Dunn (Ed.), Digital classics.Google Scholar
  20. Gaffney, V., Thompson, K., & Fitch, S. (Eds.). (2007). Mapping Doggerland: the Mesolithic landscapes of the southern North Sea. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  21. Gaffney, V., Fitch, S., & Smith, D. (2009) Europe’s lost world: The rediscovery of Doggerland. CBA Research Report 160.Google Scholar
  22. Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.) (1983) Mental models. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Grimm, V., & Railsback, S. F. (2005). Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Hinton, G. E., & Nowlan, S. J. (1987). How learning can guide evolution. Complex Systems, 1, 495–502.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading: Helix Books, Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Huston, M., Deangelis, D., & Post, W. (1988). New computer models unify ecological theory. BioScience, 38, 682–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Langton, C. G. (1986). Studying artificial life with cellular automata. Evolution, games and learning: Models of adaptation in machines and nature. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference of the Centre for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos, Amsterdam, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  29. Lynch, J. F. (2006). A logical characterization of agent-based models (pp. 1–42). Unpublished Manuscript. Potsdam: Clarkson University.Google Scholar
  30. Lynch, J. F. (2008) A logical characterization of individual-based models. 23rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE, pp. 379–390.Google Scholar
  31. Mealy, G. H. (1955). A method for synthesizing sequential circuits. Bell Systems Technical Journal, 34, 1045–1079.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Moore, E. F. (1956). Gedanken-experiments on sequential machines. Automata studies. Annals of Mathematical Studies, 34, 129–153.Google Scholar
  34. Otto, S. P., & Day, T. (2007). A biologist’s guide to mathematical modeling in ecology and evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Peeters, H., Murphy, P. L., & Flemming, N. (2009). North Sea prehistory research and management framework 2009. Amersfoort: NSPRMF.Google Scholar
  36. Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sole, R., & Goodwin, B. C. (2002). Signs of life: How complexity pervades biology. Reading: The Perseus Books Group.Google Scholar
  38. Theodoropoulos, G., Minson, R., Ewald, R., & Lees, M. (2009). Simulation engines for multi-agent systems. In A. M. Uhrmacher, & D. Weyns, (Eds.), Multi-agent systems: Simulation and applications (pp. 77–108). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  39. Waddington, C. (2003). Howick and East Barns. Current Archaeology, 189, 394–399.Google Scholar
  40. Waldrop, M. M. (1993). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. London: Viking.Google Scholar
  41. Weiß, B. (1996). Adaptation and learning in multi-agent systems: Some remarks and a bibliography. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1042(1996), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weniger, B., et al. (2008). The catastrophic final flooding of Doggerland by the Storegga Slide tsunami. Documenta Praehistorica, 35, 1–24.Google Scholar
  43. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Zadeh, L. A. (1996). Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, fuzzy systems. Singapore: World Scientific Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IBM Visual and Spatial Technology Centre, Digital Humanities HubThe University of BirminghamEdgbastonUK
  2. 2.Centre for Creative Content and Digital InnovationUniversiti MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations